Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/2025 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 3:15 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:59 PM, dbush wrote:>>>

I pay attention to the fact that you've admitted on the record that:
>
* What the halting problem proofs prove is correct

>
I said it is correct under a false assumption dipshit.
>
Are you too stupid to know that correct under a false
assumption means incorrect?

>
And that false assumption is the assumption that an H exists that performs the following mapping:
>

 That is not what I said you damned (condemned to actual Hell) liar.
 

If you're referring to the supposed assumption that no input can do the opposite of what it's halt decider says, that is not in fact an assumption but follows from a series of truth preserving operations from the actual assumption that an H exists that can perform the following mapping:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly